Public roads and sidewalks cannot host unauthorized construction as they are to be maintained for public use, ensuring pedestrian safety.

ORDER

DATED 24/05/2022 IN DBP 15/2022 BY ADVS.

ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)

SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION OTHER PRESENT:

SRI S.RAJMOHAN- -SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

19.08.2022 THE COURT ON 01.11.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Anil K. Narendran, J.

This DBP is registered based on a petition dated nil filed by Sri.Narayana Iyer of Sree Varaham, alleging that a trade union, namely, CITU, has put up a temporary shed made of tin sheets adjacent to the Kanikkavanchi at the eastern entrance of Sree Varaham Temple, Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram, which is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. A few photographs of that structure are also been enclosed along with the complaint. By proceedings dated 13.05.2022, Registry was directed to register this DBP suo motu proceedings and list the matter before the Devaswom Bench, on 19.05.2022.

2. In the complaint it is alleged that a trade union office associated with a political party has been set up recently, adjacent to the ’Kaanikkavanchi’ in the eastern entrance of Sree Varaham Temple, Manacaud. The union office is set up at the place where the devotees used to park their vehicles. Now, when the devotees park their vehicles near the union office, those inside the office verbally abused the devotees and also caused damage to the parked vehicles. In the complaint, it is alleged that those inside the union office consume liquor and they also indulge in gambling inside the office and throw food waste into the premises of the temple. If anyone questions the above conduct of the members of the union, they are physically harmed by those in the union office. In the complaint, it is alleged that despite several complaints made by the Ward Councillor Sri. Subash, no action has been taken by the 7th respondent Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and the concerned authorities, for dismantling the illegally constructed shed. Two photographs of the said shed, which are enclosed along with that complaint, are reproduced hereunder;

3. On 20.05.2022, when this DBP came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the 7th respondent Municipal Corporation sought time to get instructions. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get, through the concerned Station House Officer, the address of the trade union, which had erected the shed, as seen from the aforesaid photographs enclosed.

4. On 24.05.2022, when this DBP came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader had furnished the address of the trade union, which had erected the shed, and also the name and address of its office bearer, along with a memo dated 23.05.2022. By the order dated 24.05.2022, CITU, Kilikkode Section under Perunthanni Region Committee, Sreevaraaha Moorthi Temple, Sreevaraham, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 009, represented by its Unit Convener was suo motu impleaded as the additional 8th respondent in the DBP and notice was issued to the said respondent through the concerned Station House Officer, namely, Station House Officer, Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram City, returnable by 31.05.2022. Registry was directed to send a copy of the notice along with the DBP to the e-mail id of the Station House Officer, Fort Police Station, i.e., shofortpstvm.pol@kerala.gov.in, who was directed to ensure service of notice on the additional 8th respondent, within two days.

5. On 31.05.2022 when this DBP came up for consideration, despite service of notice, none appeared for the additional 8th respondent. The learned Senior Counsel for the 7th respondent Municipal Corporation submitted that the temporary shed constructed by the additional 8th respondent is an illegal construct